This essay, competing in length with an astonishingly long
title, is about the foolishness of defending a fort that will clearly fall
'a man might look contemptuously at two guns, but only a madman would ignore 30 cannons' |
Bravery has its virtues, but it also has its limits, and
when those limits are crossed, one steps into ‘the territories of vice’. Having
too much bravery, unless the holder of the bravery maintains the ideal limits
(when one is near the limits, they are hard to discern), may easily cause one to run into
stubbornness, foolishness, and arrogance. For this reason we have the custom of
punishing men (even with death) who are stubborn enough, during wartime, to
defend a place that is clearly unable to be held on to. If this custom did not exist, every chicken-coop would try to resist invading armies.
- The Constable de Montmorenci, after laying siege to Pavia
(in Italy), was crossing the river Ticino to go back to his quarters when he
was stopped by a tower at the end of the bridge, whose inhabitants, insistent on defending
themselves, picked a fight. The constable hanged every man he found within. I have several other examples
of similar occurrences.
As much as the strengths and the weaknesses of a fortress
are measured by the size and power of the forces that attack it (a man might
look contemptuously at two guns, but only a madman would ignore 30 cannons),
the greatness of the invading prince and the respect accorded to him are also
put into the balance. There is a danger, in fact, that too much emphasis will
be laid upon this secondary factor, and a man may think himself so high and powerful
that he cannot imagine any place shutting its gates to him. He attacks everyone
who opposes him, while his luck lasts. We see this clearly in the fierce and
haughty calls-to-war made by the Oriental princes and their successors. And in
that part of the world where the Portuguese defeated the Indians, they found
that some states had the inviolable and universal law that anyone defeated in
the presence of the king or his lieutenant would not be saved, by either ransom
(prisoner exchange etc) or mercy. Therefore it was important, above all, to
avoid falling into the hands of an enemy who was also a judge, and who was victorious,
and armed.